James F. Campbell:stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

eggrolls:James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

Know how I know you didn't read the article and have no idea what you're talking about?

eggrolls:James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

He secretly recorded a conversation he had with a police officer over the phone. That is where the wiretapping charges come from. Also, the term "tapping" in wiretapping does mean what you think it means. It does not apply only to putting a tap on someone's line. It also includes recording any conversation over a phone line, including holding a microphone up to the phone while you are talking on it.

tomWright:With his website he is as much a journalist as someone using the Gutenberg press was in the decades after it's invention.

I wouldn't argue against that. Journalism is an act, not a licensed profession (or if it is, that licensing would be prone to censorship and cronyism of worrying levels).

tomWright:While the rancor has died down, there are still many with political or economic power, especially in establishment journalism and publishing, that want nothing more than some sort of suppression or control of electronic media. This kind or 'wiretap' law is one small part of it.

Which kind of wiretapping is that? If it's recording things in public, I agree that it shouldn't be subject to wiretapping laws. If it's (as may be) a telephone conversation...again, I prefer the single-party consent laws on wiretapping. If you say something to someone, you can't afford to be squeamish about how they're going to spread your words. But if there's two-party consent out there...well, whatever it would protect would be vulnerable if someone could just claim "Journalism!" and post one's words as if those laws didn't exist.

LowbrowDeluxe:karilee183: Let's hear what the police have to say about this.

"I hope this cop hating creep gets life in prison at a supermax facility. It's idiots like Ademo that stir society up to make people think it is ok to assault and kill officers. This man needs to be silenced and put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and his stupid website should be erased for good."

Protecting and serving at its finest.

This guy isn't exactly a journalist, and this isn't as clear cut as his supporters want to make it out to be, but I'm pretty sure it's actually guys like the quoted saying things like this that stirs society up.

Should journalists have special rights the rest of us do not? Are they special somehow?

"I hope this cop hating creep gets life in prison at a supermax facility. It's idiots like Ademo that stir society up to make people think it is ok to assault and kill officers. This man needs to be silenced and put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and his stupid website should be erased for good."

Protecting and serving at its finest.

Was this from an interview with an actual cop or just a written commentary submitted by someone claiming to be a cop?

All I could find on the linked page was an ex-cop's site where submitters offer commentary about movies and arrest ethics. I didn't dig to deep though so I can't really comment on what was or wasn't said. Care to point out the general location of this comment on the site?

BarkingUnicorn:But I don't know if the defendant recorded public officials in public areas. TFA doesn't tell me, and I can't find anything more informative.

Can you?

My law-worshiping senses tell me that this kid must have broken the law, or he wouldn't be in jail. I haven't read the phrenology report, though, so I don't know if his soul can be redeemed before he's burnt at the stake for heresy.

SevenizGud:ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting

Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.

You forgot that part. If they had been sitting peacefully OFF the sidewalk, and got maced, then I'd agree with you.

Your other examples are just as shiatty.

You say my examples are shiatty but you would used that argument to defend the cops that maced those students? See what I mean, these authoritarian types will do and say anything, even if it makes no sense and is ridiculous, to protect somebody who put a Liberal in their place. Like i said before, if the jury pool is from a heavily conservative area, this guy is toast.

Mock26:eggrolls: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

He secretly recorded a conversation he had with a police officer over the phone. That is where the wiretapping charges come from. Also, the term "tapping" in wiretapping does mean what you think it means. It does not apply only to putting a tap on someone's line. It also includes recording any conversation over a phone line, including holding a microphone up to the phone while you are talking on it.

In a nutshell, lack of consent for use of a private conversation in a public forum. It would be awesome they applied this ruling to the former lovers who post pics on porn sites that were originally intended "for their eyes only".

Not worth 21 years but definitely a few hours in an orange vest "helping clean up society" along a public roadway.

The writer of the article press release included just enough information for no one to have any idea what the fark actually happened. That doesn't strike me as very credible. If I were truly innocent, I think that I would clearly lay out the details, not write some incredibly vague piece expressing vague sentiments about the law.

Also, his site repeatedly mentions things like "the arbitrary political boundaries that make up state X" and they put "senators" in quotes when talking about sitting Senators...among other nutty things.

I can't muster up too much outrage for this wing-nut. It's the cop bashing equivalent of Free Republic.

SevenizGud:ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting

Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.

I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

Dinjiin:Sidestepping the question as to if all-party notification of recording is a good thing, the bigger issue here is the punishment. I could see a couple of months at most when not done in conjunction with blackmail and coercion, but 21 years sounds like the government attempting to silence its critics.

That would be the maximum sentence he could get. In some grievous situations, probably no-party consent (IANAL), 21 years would be a harsh but possibly appropriate term. He hasn't received a 21-year sentence, he's just eligible for up to that much. I agree that...again, assuming that my ignorance is correct...they ought to have graduations of the crime with graduated sentence ranges, too.

Doc Ok:GORDON: ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.

You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.

There is a very interesting online book supporting what ongbok said: The Authoritarians. The author brings data that shows a clear correlation between being conservative and being an authoritarian in the sense of a person that likes bowing to authority. You can call the author a hippy liberal, but it's hard to argue with his data or methods.

Authoritarianism is not exclusively a right wing problem. It is a Human problem regardless of ideology. Would call the regimes that sent tanks in Tienanmen Square, Hungary in 1956, Built the wall between East and West Germany, invaded and oppressed the sovereign nation of Tibet, right wing?

How about the U.S. college administrations that are suppressing free speech by setting up "free speech zones" where they corral those they do not like? Or expel students merely accused of improper behavior with right to review, hearing, trial or counsel? Storied about all of those have been linked to here on Fark. Those are not notoriously right wing folks.

I am not defending the right wing, they have their monsters too, usually associated with churches in recent decades. I am pointing out that claiming the right is more susceptible is wrong based on history, especially recent history.

All ideologies, religious or political, are susceptible to authoritarian actions.

That's what's usually meant by saying "there's a correlation between X and Y." It doesn't mean that X always implies Y, or vice versa, but that being X improves the probability of being Y, and vice versa. In this particular case, the data show that this increase in probability is surprisingly large. So there.

"Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?" Mueller told Judge Kenneth Brown in court last week. "I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions. My mind is free and my conscience is clear. I haven't harmed anyone and I've done what I feel is right. I'll be an activist of freedom until the day I die," he later wrote in a blog posted to CopBlock.org.

/Because justice is arbitrary, and I've often seen many crimes that are lesser get stiffer time in jail than horrible crimes that should result in a life sentence. i usually side with the police, having served as one, but i have to say that as a officer, if i can film you and record your voice during a stop, you should have the right to film me and record my actions. This "wire tapping" is bullshiat, and all the cops know it, and any argument saying "letting the public film officers endangers the officers" is crap. And we all know it.I don't personally believe that most cops violate peoples rights on purpose, but they don't want their farkups televised either. Sure, cops make mistakes, they let their emotions get the better of them, but they are, as we are, people. With the same faults and emotional reactions to different situations. Sure, there are bad cops who play the system, but there are bad people in every profession. But to make a long post short, if you can film me,and record my voice without a warrant in public, then i should be able to do the same to you, without fear of you grabbing my camera or arresting me on some bullshiat charge.///my 2cents.

Doc Ok:SevenizGud: ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting

Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.

I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

tomWright:Doc Ok: GORDON: ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.

You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.

There is a very interesting online book supporting what ongbok said: The Authoritarians. The author brings data that shows a clear correlation between being conservative and being an authoritarian in the sense of a person that likes bowing to authority. You can call the author a hippy liberal, but it's hard to argue with his data or methods.

Authoritarianism is not exclusively a right wing problem. It is a Human problem regardless of ideology. Would call the regimes that sent tanks in Tienanmen Square, Hungary in 1956, Built the wall between East and West Germany, invaded and oppressed the sovereign nation of Tibet, right wing?

How about the U.S. college administrations that are suppressing free speech by setting up "free speech zones" where they corral those they do not like? Or expel students merely accused of improper behavior with right to review, hearing, trial or counsel? Storied about all of those have been linked to here on Fark. Those are not notoriously right wing folks.

I am not defending the right wing, they have their monsters too, usually associated with churches in recent decades. I am pointing out that claiming the right is more susceptible is wrong based on history, especially recent history.

All ideologies, religious or polit ...

...So in other words, both sides are bad because history?

Also, you might get some traction arguing that college professors tend to be libs, but not the top administration and security folks. And they're the ones giving the orders to corral people.

Silly Jesus:Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

stevarooni:tomWright: While the rancor has died down, there are still many with political or economic power, especially in establishment journalism and publishing, that want nothing more than some sort of suppression or control of electronic media. This kind or 'wiretap' law is one small part of it.

Which kind of wiretapping is that? If it's recording things in public, I agree that it shouldn't be subject to wiretapping laws. If it's (as may be) a telephone conversation...again, I prefer the single-party consent laws on wiretapping. If you say something to someone, you can't afford to be squeamish about how they're going to spread your words. But if there's two-party consent out there...well, whatever it would protect would be vulnerable if someone could just claim "Journalism!" and post one's words as if those laws didn't exist.

Well, I do not know if there are Federal laws on recording in a public school, or what the state laws are here. I would consider a public school to be 'in public', though I do not think the law does in some, maybe many states.

So far as singe/multiple party consent laws, yeah, those can muddy the waters. What if there are 5 people involved and one is a corrupt cop?

This is a public official, with the authority to use deadly force. I think every action they take on duty, up to and including crapping on public time, should be on the record, regardless of consent of other parties. We have all seen the abuses. Just look at the work of Radley Balko, or the Innocence Project and other worthy groups for that evidence. Frankly, I think any public employee authorized to so much as issue a citation subject to a fine, let alone carry a gun, should be required to bolt a video camera to their head when on duty.

Girion47:What's even more sad is that the DA chose to prosecute this. Or a judge agreed to hear it.

As a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that often times the assistant district attorney who prosecutes the case would rather dismiss it. Often the assistants have marching orders from the main district attorney prohibiting them from dismissing cases when the arresting officer object. So this creates a situation where the cases where officers are involved in misconduct (brutality) move to trail on false charges of resisting arrest or assault on police because if they can squeeze out a conviction then it limits the police officer's liability in a civil suit. Additionally, even if they cannot win they know that it will cost the defendant more money to take his case to trail than to settle it and they get joy in forcing the defendant to pay more case.

I have tried two cases this year and went through one suppressions hearing were the assistant district attorneys handling the cases said they wished they could dismiss the cases. I won, but it is BS that the assistant district attorneys are not allowed to use their discretion.

Doc Ok:I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.

The authorities are going to realize that the right-to-privacy is a two-way street. You can't argue that citizens have no right to privacy when they are out in public but that the police have a right to privacy when they are out in public. The camera sees in many directions.

Doc Ok:People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it.

I need to amend that. People walk through the quad, which means they walk across the lawn. The protesters were blocking a paved walkway through the quad, which had only recently been dubbed the "centennial walk" due to UC Davis 100th anniversary. It's that walkway that's really unimportant.

What it all boils down to is that they were holding a protest in a very visible and central area, but they weren't disrupting anything. I'd call that a good protest, right up to the point when the police showed up. I had absolutely no problem walking by there on my way to and from lunch, again, before the cops came.

tomWright:Well, I do not know if there are Federal laws on recording in a public school, or what the state laws are here. I would consider a public school to be 'in public', though I do not think the law does in some, maybe many states.

At least for me, though, that's not what I was talking about. My impression is that the wiretapping isn't for taping what was going on in the school (as you said, public place), but that he recorded a telephone conversation with a cop about said beating. Now if you're talking about the same thing I'm talking about, yes, I'll disagree with you. I could see a reasonable prohibition against recording telephone conversations without the consent of both parties...though I disagree with such a prohibition.

consider this:Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.

It's not a sidewalk, it's a paved walkway through a big lawn. Here's an aerial photograph showing the protest in reaction to the pepperspraying a few days later. The walkway that was blocked is the one along the left edge of the picture; the protesters were sitting in the central circle. You'll notice that there is absolutely no obstruction on either side of the walkway, which is why it was not even an inconvenience to walk around them.

Doc Ok:Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.

Silly Jesus:Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.

Whether the original tents were disruptive was up for discussion then, and the independent investigation concluded that the tent people were not violating any university rules. So the police were sent in without cause, meaning that the sit-in protest that happened in response to the police action was a valid protest of an unjust action. The pepperspraying happened in response to the sit-in protest. This is not my opinion, but that of the external review panel. The bottom line is that the admins farked up, which is why the police chief, and the officer doing the pepper-spraying, are not with the police force anymore.

Silly Jesus:Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.

See what I mean about conservatives. The police stuck it to Liberals, good for them, I don't care if they were college kids who weren't causing any type of disruption while exercising their second amendment rights, as long as they were put in their place.

You are not going to get anywhere with this guy so you may as well ignore him. His arguments are just going to get more and more asinine.

HeartlineTwist:BarkingUnicorn: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

I agree. So does the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District, which includes this guy's jurisdiction.

But I don't know if the defendant recorded public officials in public areas. TFA doesn't tell me, and I can't find anything more informative.

Can you?

From the article, sounds like the interviews he recorded were phone interviews with the police officials. So, I'm guessing most likely not in a public place.

Not sure which article you mean. The CNN article refers only to "recordings of public officials," without specifying who they are or where they were or what kind of recording.

The defendant's article includes a video that shows him recording two phone conversations: first with a police captain, and then the school's principal. Those are the "public officials."

He called both people at their offices. He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission. At least, he did not video himself doing either of those things. A phone call carries an expectation of privacy, even if any of the parties is a public official. One's office is not a public area, even if it's in a building that has areas open to the public. You can't just stroll into the office of a cop or a principal without permission.

That's two counts that I can see. IDK where the third comes from. It can't be the video that the student provided to him. He didn't intercept or record that.

He won't get 21 years, of course. But he seems to be convicted by his own camera on two counts.

Doc Ok:consider this: Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.

It's not a sidewalk, it's a paved walkway through a big lawn. Here's an aerial photograph showing the protest in reaction to the pepperspraying a few days later. The walkway that was blocked is the one along the left edge of the picture; the protesters were sitting in the central circle. You'll notice that there is absolutely no obstruction on either side of the walkway, which is why it was not even an inconvenience to walk around them.

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

The following comment is mostly serious...

I parked my car on a 3 lane road the other day. It was not an inconvenience because people could just use the other two lanes. My taxes were too high, so I protested. But take no notice, everyone can just go around.

The sidewalk is for people to walk on...not for people to sit on and block. They could have just as easily sat in the grass beside the sidewalk, but they wanted to make a point, so they decided to no longer allow people to use the sidewalk. Fark you, get off the damn sidewalk. I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.